1989/12/15City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session.
The Council Meeting of December 12, 1989 was adjourneed to this date and time.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PLANNING DIRECTOR: 3eel Fick
(Representatives of Planning Staff and Traffic Engtngering were also
present)
Mayor Hunter called the adjourned regular meeting to order to consider the
following, all Council Members being present (2:30 p.m.)
179/155; PUBLIC HEARING- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 299,
RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-29, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 3224, AND REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW.
APPLICANT:
OWNERS:
Orange County Flood Control District
400 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Aha, California 92701
Paul Lawrence and Karen J. Root
1210 Polaris Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Phoenix Club German Association of Orange County, a Corporation
1566 South Douglass Road
Anaheim, California 92806
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is approximately 26 acres located north and
east of the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. The
request is (1) for a change in zones from RS-A-43,000(FP), ML and ML(FP) to PR
and PR(FP) on the westerly approximately 9 acres and (2) to permit a parking
area to be accessory to a multi-purpose sports facility with waiver of maximum
fence height on the easterly approximately 17 acres.
HEARING SET ON:
Request by Planning Commission for City Council review.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin December 4, 1989
Posting of Property December 6, 1989
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet December 5, 1989 (amended notice
mailed December 7, 1989)
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See extensive staff report to the Planning commission dated December 13,
1989. Also see additional informational material for the arena project
including correspondence from interested parties, related material included in
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
exhibits A through M, draft EIR (DEIR) 299, final EIR (FEIR) 299 and EIR 299
Response to Comments.
City Attorney Jack White summarized the actions of the Planning Commission
taken at their meeting of December 13, 1989. The Planning Commission
subsequent to its public hearing on the items before the City Council today
voted by resolution to certify Final EIR No. 299. In conjunction with the two
zoning actions: voted to approve the zoning reclassification for a portion of
the property that is in the perimeter of the project covered by the EIR; by
motion approved waiver of the maximum wall height for a wall that would be
constructed adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the adjoining
Mobile Home Park between the project site and the Mobile Home Park; and by
resolution, denied the CUP for an approximate 17 acre portion of the project
site that would be proposed for utilization as off-street parking in
conjunction with the proposed arena.
After those actions, the Planning Commission by motion referred to the City
Council all of its decisions in regard to the aforementioned matters for
Council consideration and further action. Today the Council has all those
items legally before it to consider. At this time, it would be appropriate to
briefly hear from City Staff and the consultants who have prepared the
documentation for the project and then to open the public hearing for comments
from the public.
Mr. Kevin Walls, Ogden Corporation.
The facility is a 20,000 seat sports and entertainment arena
located on the site described north of Katella, east of
Douglass. It will contain 80 luxury suites and approximately
2500 VIP seats. It will also house a restaurant and club for
patrons. It is a multipurpose facility available for
basketball, ice shows and hockey, concerts, family shows,
national conventions and the like. The building itself is
approximately 400 x 520 feet in floor plan dimensions. It is
rectangular at grade and the arena bow drum extends above that
as shown in the rendering on the Chamber wall. The building
itself is about 85 feet high in total although the arena floor
is sunken below grade to allow patron access at grade, leaving
the building approximately 60 feet high above the existing
grade. There are approximately 2900 parking spaces on the
adjacent land with other parking throughout. The aesthetics of
the building as shown in the rendering are based on timeless
quality and not a fad that will run out in a couple of years and
worked to blend with the existing and proposed development in
the Stadium area. He then introduced the representative from
Phillips Brandt Reddick, the firm which prepared the
Environmental Impact Report.
Mr. Sid Lindmark, Director, Phillips Brandt Reddick (PBR), 18012
Sky Park Circle, Irvine 92714.
Mr. Lindmark then read a prepared statement dated December 15,
1989 (City Council - December 15, 1989, Anaheim Arena, City of
Anaheim - made a part of the record). His presentation covered
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
the procedures followed in preparing the draft EIR which has
been available for public review since November 6, 1989 and
Final EIR, briefed the actions that followed upon completion of
the Draft EIR, reported on the Final EIR which is before the
Council today which includes public comments, briefed
corrections that have been made as well as additions.
Representatives who prepared the various reports were also
present to answer questions on the Draft EIR following public
comments.
Mr. Ltndmark noted they have also received a letter from the
City of Orange relating to the Memorandum of Understanding
Agreements on circulation improvements which is available to the
public and a letter from the law firm of Augustini, Wheeler and
Dorman on behalf of Anaheim Stadium Associates (ASA) dated
December 15, 1989 regarding a request for a continuance of two
weeks for additional time for review of the environmental
documentation.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing.
Julte Mayer, Chairman of Art in Public Places, a committee of
the Anaheim Arts Council.
The Anaheim Arts Council is advisory to the City Council. She
is presently representing the Arts Council on behalf of the
section which addresses aesthetics, representing 35 local arts
organizations. She is requesting that an Art in Public Places
element be considered where feasible in the final arena design
both in the interior and exterior of the proposed complex. This
will be of great assistance to their efforts to continue to
encourage voluntary support of arts in the City. They will also
be happy to serve as a resource.
Karen Spaulding.
She and her husband are the owners of Old Mill Custom Cabinets
on the northeast corner of Douglass and Katella. She is present
in order to learn what is going on since she has never been
approached by anyone in the City or any entity. She heard Mr.
Lindmark say that the property owners have been contacted. She
is wondering what their future is at their present location.
Eileen McGregor, General Manager, Environmental Seal and
Security.
She is located on the same property as Karen Spaulding's company
on the northeast corner of Katella and Douglass adjacent to the
riverbed. They have an approximately 20,000 square foot
building that does not show up on any of the drawings. They
have not been purchased by the City and it appears there is
going to be a VIP parking lot going through the eastern corner
of their facility. A partnership owns the building and they are
leasing the building from the partnership. The three buildings
involved are at 2601, 2605 and 2621. (Spauldtng building is at
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
2601). Environmental Seal is at 2621. They have a ten year
lease and no one has spoken to them
Mayor Hunter.
Prior to receiving any additional testimony, his intention is
that the hearing be continued as an open public hearing in two
weeks to allow the Council and public to review the additional
documentation prepared in conjunction with the project. He
asked if there was a general Council consensus that the public
hearing be continued for two weeks after receiving additional
input today.
The general Council consensus was that there be a continuance of the public
hearing after taking additional testimony today.
Robert Coldren, Attorney, Hart, King and Coldren, representing
Campanula Properties and John A. Stanaland, owners and operators
of Orange Tree Mobile Home Park, surrounded by the proposed
project on two sides.
In view of the fact that the Council is going to be continuing
the hearing for further testimony to another date in the future,
he will defer his comments until that point in time. Since the
Commission hearings occurred, they have had informal discussions
with Staff which have given cause to believe there may be some
opportunity to further mitigate the adverse impacts and resolve
the differences. With regard to those interim discussions,
those have been in good faith and he feels they are moving in
the right direction. On that basis, he supports the Council's
desire in that regard.
While the EIR mitigations and issues are not resolved, the
Planning Commission has already incorporated a number of
significant mitigation measures which do go some distance toward
solving the problems of the Park residents and the Park itself.
Among those mitigation measures are the sound absorption wall
around the park, discussion regarding restriction on tailgating
parties, sidewalks along Douglass, and the issue of prohibiting
parking along Douglass all those are steps in the right
direction. His client Will continue the mutual good faith
efforts between now and the time of the continued meeting to
resolve the differences. He understands that the Council today
is not going to vote on the CUP, the EIR, the Zone
Reclassification issues or any of the other issues. By not
giving any public testimony and refraining from taking any
action until the continuation date, his client would not be
deemed to have been waiving or prejudicing any of his rights
with respect to the concerns or issues. He assumes also that
the City is not going to be entering into any binding
contractual commitments that will be irreversible, that there
will not be bulldozers out on the site or by doing anything that
will commit the City further toward the arena project in an
irreversible fashion.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1989, 1;30 P.M.
Mayor Hunter.
He gave Mr.' Coldren that assurance since he noted the City
Attorney was shaking his head affirmatively on the points
articulated by Mr. Coldren.
Andrew Starrels, 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, Attorney
with Loeb and Loeb representing the Los Angeles Rams Football
Team.
He will make some brief comments today and reserve the right to
make additional comments two weeks hence. The Rams have
delivered a letter from Loeb and Loeb indicating their
opposition to the project dated December 15, 1989. It is
reprinted as comments no. 64 in the FEIR. The Rams' position is
that the responses to those comments contained in the FEIR and
the Planning Commission hearing are not adequate to satisfy the
requirements of CEQA either procedurally or substantively.
Those comments and the other comments raised by other
respondents both in the Commission action and public response
period form the basis of the Rams continued opposition and
concern for this project. The adverse impacts presented are too
great to satisfy the requirements of CEQA even when mitigated
and are even more exacerbated by the Planning Commission's
recommendation to deny the Conditional Use Permit, thereby
eliminating a lot of the on-site parking for the proposed
project. There is no evidence in the administrative record
to support the recommended findings of the Commission as
required by CEQA. The Rams reserve the right to challenge the
adequacy of the EIR report and the propriety of the City to
certify it and would like to append their written responses
contained in the EIR to today's proceedings.
Richard Tozer, owner/operator, Rancho del Rio Stables, the
property the City proposes on making a three way trade with the
Phoenix Club.
He is opposed to not being included in the EIR. That is his
main complaint. They are 1,000 feet from the Phoenix Club No
one can understand why the Stables were not included. His
property is impacted most by the project. Rancho del Rio has
been in Anaheim for 20 years. The Staff Report submitted to the
Planning Commission stated they are in the Cognty but they have
been incorporated into Anaheim for eight to ten years. They
have been an asset to the City. Over 3,000 kids, mostly young
ladies, circulate through the stables. There is a handicapped
program known all over the country. There are 50 children
physically and mentally handicapped who will have no place to
go. It is not going to be easy to relocate this program along
with the other 200 horses in the Stable represented by 200
families. He would like the Phoenix Club to go somewhere else.
The Stable should be included in the impact report because they
are impacted more than anyone else since they would have to
relocate. Nobody has addressed the effect the project will have
on the environment. It is a beautiful area. He respectfully
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIN-OTES - December 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
requests since the matter is going to be continued that his
comments be taken into serious consideration and at least be
included in the FEIR before it is adopted.
Lena Irigoyen, American Riding Club for the Handicapped.
She agrees with Mr. Tozer. She spoke to the Planning Commission
to let them know of the concern of the handicapped children who
use the stables. They do not understand how or why they are
going to be displaced. The program has been ongoing for ten
years and now they will have no place to ride. The stable is
not only a pastime for them, it is an important part of their
lives. There is also no drinking allowed. It is drug free. It
is a protected environment for them and she does not want to see
them thrown out into the street. They are a family. The kids
do not have anything in life except once a week to come to the
stables to ride.
Priscilla Anderson, resident, Orange Tree Mobile Home Park.
Her concern is being put into a prison. It is not fair to the
residents to put ten and fifty foot walls around the Park. The
electricity goes down at least ten times a year. With electric
gates, they will be locked into the Park and nobody can get
out. There are many seniors in the Park and they will not be
able to get out if there is a problem with the electricity.
They are impacted now when the Rams games patrons take up all
the parking places and with the Phoenix Club activities as well
as their parking taking up the Park's entrances and exits. It
is better to buy out the Mobile Home Park and relocate the
residents. There will be 210 residents sandwiched in between an
arena and a proposed jail. The road is not wide enough. One
entrance and exit for the Park is not safe. Under the
circumstances, they will not be able to sell their mobile homes.
There was no additional public input/comments at this time.
City Attorney White.
Prior to the Council taking any action to continue the matter,
Mr. Lindmark should be called upon to give responses to the
comments put forth today that raise significant environmental
issues.
Std Ltndmark, PBR.
Response to comments by ~aren ~paulding and Etleen McCregor:
Ail public noticing requirements of the City have been met on
the project as it would pertain to property owners. The lessee
may have been missed. The City is not required to notify other
entities other than the property owner. In exhibit 9 of the
DEIR, the location referenced by Miss McGregor is noted. It is
number 11. Individual businesses are not listed and the
immediate area that is being identified is listed as commercial
and industrial.
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
Response to comments by Andrew Starrels, Los Angeles Rams and
note 64 of the FEIR:
There is an implication that the City cannot certify an EIR when
the environmental impacts are not mitigated to a level of
insignificance. In accordance with CEQA, that is not the case.
The draft and final EIR acts as a disclosure document. If those
mitigations are identified as they are in a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, the lead agency may go on to give
certification to an EIR even though the implications are not
mitigated to a level of insignificance. It is the lead agency
and the City Council that have the responsibility in terms of
determination, of whether the findings for the project are
present, or the propriety to certify occurs.
Ken Ryan, PBR.
Response to comments by Mr. Tozer:
The stables are not a part of the proposed project as defined in
CEQA. It has not been determined where the Phoenix Club would
be relocated to. It is not now known whether the Phoenix Club
would go to the stable site, only that it would need to be
relocated for the project to occur. No final agreements have
been signed regarding that issue.
Relative to the trails, they are very sensitive to those
issues. Exhibit Nine indicates the stables are off-site and not
a part of the project. They are separated by the Southern
Pacific Railroad and the project does not involve any removal of
biological habitat or Eucalyptus trees that were mentioned
relative to the stable area. They did look at biological
impacts which are part of the project. The site is urbanized
and has been degraded in terms of the flooding area. Biological
impacts were deemed not to be significant. Additionally, they
coordinated with the County regarding future plans for
equestrian trails and were consistent with the master plan of
riding and hiking trails currently indicated on the eastern side
of the river. The County did indicate future plans to relocate
the trail on the western side but that was deemed not to be an
impact to the project. The project would be compatible with any
future plans relative to the location of the equestrian trails.
There was an earlier comment by Julie Mayer regarding the
potential for art in public places. There might be an excellent
opportunity for that to occur. There are two mitigation
measures they have included that include architectural features
and landscape design review. It would be an excellent
opportunity to incorporate any type of feedback relative to that
program.
Response to comments by Priscilla Anderson:
It is important to note that the wall which is a mitigation
measure addresses sound attenuation issues as well as security
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M.
issues. They met with representatives of the Mobile Home Park
residents during preparation of the project. One of the issues
involved security problems that currently exist. The wall would
provide additional security that is not there at the present
time. There would also be a ten foot landscaped buffer between
the wall and the project area that could reduce any kind of
stark nature of the wall.
Relative to the safety issue, they did include a mitigation
measure relative to providing for card gate access to assure
safety and parking impacts would not be impacted upon the mobile
home residents. Along with that there is an opportunity to put
in a manual device to assure if there is no electricity, access
would still be accommodated and the safety issue would be a
non-issue.
Sid Lindmark, PBR.
The Fire Department does receive a key and will always have
access no matter what the circumstances are. The gates are
usually mechanically configured so that any vehicle could crash
through the gate if necessary.
Mayor Hunter.
At this time, he is going to move to continue the Public Hearing
on the subject to Wednesday, December 27, 1989 at 9:00 a.m. as
an open hearing and further that while the official 30-day
public review period on the Draft EIR was closed on December 6,
1989 and all written comments received during that period were
included in the Final EIR, since the public has expressed
additional concerns related to the project, the City will
continue to receive written comments on the environmental
documents until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 20, 1989 and
additional oral comments will be received at the continued
Public Hearing on December 27, 1989 without reopening the formal
public review period, councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney White.
He recommends that the Council recess to closed session to
consider discussion of those items listed on the closed session
of the December 12, 1989 Council meetin~ ~c wnic~ ~ni~ meeting
was adjourned and after that closed session it would further be
his recommendation that the City Council reconvene in open
session and then adjourn to Thursday, December 21, 1989 at 1:30
p.m. to consider in joint public hearing with the Redevelopment
Agency the matter listed under item D6 on the December 12, 1989
Council Agenda (Disposition and Development Agreement Koll
Anaheim Center Associates).
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Hunter moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED (3:30 p.m.)
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present (5:09 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn to Thursday, December 21,
1989 at 1:30 p.m.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:10 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK